CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY
Code Design for Short Blocks: A Survey
Gianluigi Liva, Lorenzo Gaudio, Tudor Ninacs and Thomas Jerkovits
Abstract—The design of block codes for short information
blocks (e.g., a thousand or less information bits) is an open
research problem which is gaining relevance thanks to emerging
applications in wireless communication networks. In this work,
we review some of the most recent code constructions targeting
the short block regime, and we compare then with both finite-
length performance bounds and classical error correction coding
arXiv:1610.00873v1 [cs.IT] 4 Oct 2016
schemes. We will see how it is possible to effectively approach
the theoretical bounds, with different performance vs. decoding
complexity trade-offs.
I. I NTRODUCTION
D URING the past sixty years, a formidable effort has been
channeled in the research of capacity-approaching error
correcting codes [1]. Initially the attention was directed to
short and medium-length linear block codes [2] (with some
notable exceptions, see e.g. [3], [4]), mainly for complexity
reasons. As the idea of code concatenation [5] got established
in the coding theorists community [6], the design of long
channel codes became a viable solution to approach channel
capacity. The effort resulted in a number of practical code
constructions allowing reliable transmission at fractions of
decibels from the Shannon limit [7]–[16] with low-complexity
(sub-optimum) decoding.
The interest in short and medium-block length codes (i.e.,
codes with dimension k in the range of 50 to 1000 bits) has
been rising again recently, mainly due to emergent applications
requiring the transmission of short data units. Examples of
such applications are machine-type communications, smart
metering networks, remote command links and messaging
services (see e.g. [17]–[20]).
When the design of short iteratively-decodable codes is at-
tempted, it turns out that some classical code construction tools
which have been developed for turbo-like codes tend to fail in
providing codes with acceptable performance. This is the case,
for instance, of density evolution [21] and extrinsic informa-
tion transfer (EXIT) charts [22], which are well-established
techniques to design powerful long low-density parity-check
(LDPC) and turbo codes. The issue is due to the asymptotic
(in the block length) nature of density evolution and EXIT
analysis which fail to properly model the iterative decoder in
the short block length regime. However, competitive LDPC
and turbo code designs for moderate-length and small blocks
have been proposed, mostly based on heuristic construction
techniques [23]–[44]. While iterative codes retain a large
appeal due their low decoding complexity, more sophisticated
G. Liva, L. Gaudio, T. Ninacs and T. Jerkovits are with Institute of Commu-
nication and Navigation of the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
(DLR), 82234 Wessling, Germany (e-mail: gianluigi.liva@dlr.de).
A preliminary version of this work was presented at the 25th Edition of
the European Conference on Networks and Communications (EuCNC), June
2016.
1
decoding algorithms [45]–[49] are feasible for short blocks
leading to solutions that are performance-wise competitive (if
not superior) with respect to iterative decoding of short turbo
and LDPC codes.1
II. A C ASE S TUDY
In this section, we provide an exemplary comparison of
short codes. We focus on the case study of codes with block
length and code dimension n = 128 and k = 64 bits,
respectively, which are the parameters of the shortest code
recently standardized by Consultative Committee for Space
Data Systems (CCSDS) [52] for satellite telecommand links
[53]. The performance of the schemes is measures in terms
of codeword error rate (CER) versus signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) over the binary-input additive white Gaussian noise
(bi-AWGN) channel, with SNR given by the Eb /N0 ratio
(here, Eb is the energy per information bit and N0 the single-
sided noise power spectral density). Besides, we discuss other
metrics such as the capability to detect errors and (although
not exhaustively) the complexity of decoding. For this block
size, we defined a list of viable candidate solutions comprising
i. Short binary LDPC and turbo codes, and their non-binary
counterparts;
ii. The (128, 64) extended Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem
(BCH) code (with minimum distance 22), under ordered
statistics decoding (OSD);
iii. Two tail-biting convolutional codes with memory m = 8
and m = 11;
iv. A polar code under successive cancellation (SC) decoding
and under CRC-aided list decoding.
The performance of the codes is compared in Figure 1 with
three finite-length performance benchmarks, i.e., the 1959
Shannon’s sphere packing bound (SPB)2 [57] ( ), Gal-
lager’s random coding bound (RCB) [58] for the bi-AWGN
channel ( ), and the normal approximation of [59] ( ).3
As reference, the performance of the (128, 64) binary
protograph-based [27], [63] LDPC code from the CCSDS
telecommand standard [53] is provided too ( ). The CCSDS
LDPC code performs somehow poorly in terms of coding gain.
The code is outperformed at moderate error rates (CER ≈
10−4 ) even by a standard regular (3, 6) LDPC code ( ).
The CCSDS LDPC is also outperformed by an accumulate-
repeat-3-accumulate (AR3A) LDPC code [64] ( ) an by
an accumulate-repeat-jagged-accumulate (ARJA) LDPC code
1 Further approaches deserving a particular attention for short and moderate-
length codes are, among others, those in [50], [51].
2 Additionally to Shannon’s 1959 SPB, one may consider the comparison
with bounds relying on error exponents following the 1967 SPB [54]–[56].
3 Excellent surveys on performance bounds in the finite block length regime
are given in [59]–[61]. A useful library of routines for the calculation of the
benchmarks is available at https://sites.google.com/site/durisi/software [62].
2 CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY
[65] ( ).4 At low error rates (e.g. CER ≈ 10−6 ) the
CCSDS LDPC code is likely to attain lower error rates than
the above-introduced LDPC code competitors thanks to its
remarkable distance properties [27]. The four binary LDPC
codes introduced so far perform relatively poorly with respect
to the benchmarks (roughly 1 dB away from the RCB at
CER ≈ 10−4 ). Despite its uninspiring performance, we shall
see in the Section II.B that the CCSDS LDPC code design
is particularly suited for application to satellite telecommand
links.
The performance of a turbo code introduced in [67] based
on 16-states component recursive convolutional codes is also
provided ( ). The turbo code shows superior performance
with respect to binary LDPC codes, down to low error rates.
The code attains a CER ≈ 10−4 at almost 0.4 dB from
the RCB. The code performance diverges remarkably from
the RCB at lower error rates, due to the relatively low code
minimum distance.5
Results for both non-binary turbo ( ) and LDPC ( ) memory-11 encoder with generator polynomials [5537 6131].
codes are included in Figure 1. Both codes have been con-
structed over a finite field of order 256. The turbo code is based
on memory-1 time-variant recursive convolutional codes [42].
The choice of memory-1 component codes enables the use of
the fast Fourier transform (FFT) to reduce complexity of their
forward-backward decoding algorithm [34]. The non-binary
LDPC is based on an ultra-sparse parity-check matrix [35].
Details on the code structure are provided in [53], [68], [69].
Both codes attain visible gains with respect to their binary
counterparts, performing on the RCB (and with 0.7 dB from
the normal approximation reference) down to low error rates
(no floors down to CER ≈ 10−9 were observed in [68]).
For the block length considered in this comparison, a viable
alternative to the use of codes with iterative decoders is
provided by OSD. Contrary to iterative decoding, OSD [45]
does not require any particular code structure, and hence
can be applied to any (linear) block code. In Figure 1, the
performance of a (128, 64) extended BCH code with minimum
distance 22 is displayed. The variant of OSD used for the
simulation is the one based on the identification of the most
reliable basis. Test error patterns up to a maximum weight of
4 have been used, resulting in a decoder list of ≈ 6.8 × 105
codewords. The BCH code performance is close to the normal
approximation benchmark, gaining ≈ 0.6 dB over non-binary
turbo and LDPC codes at CER ≈ 10−4 . The same decoding
algorithm has been applied to the binary image of the non-
binary LDPC code . Interestingly, a non-binary LDPC
CER is almost indistinguishable from the one of the BCH
code, highlighting the sub-optimality of iterative decoding.
The error probability of a polar code under SC decoding ( ) benefits for finite precision (hardware) implementations. The
is included. A more appropriate comparison, able to fully
4 All LDPC codes introduced in this comparison have been designed through
a girth optimization technique based on the progressive edge growth (PEG)
algorithm [66]. A maximum of 200 belief propagation iterations have been
used in the simulations (though, the average iteration count is much lower,
especially at high SNRs thanks to early decoding stopping rules).
5 In [31], design improvements for the specific case of (128, 64) turbo codes
have been presented, which are able to overcome the error floor issue down
to CER ≈ 10−7 . The proposed design leverages on the use of tail-biting
component codes together with a thorough interleaver search procedure.
exploit the potential of polar codes under list decoding, is a
concatenation of an inner polar code with an outer high-rate
error detection code as proposed in [49]. The error probability
of the concatenation using a CRC-7 as an outer code is shown
( ). The polar code has parameters (128, 71), while the
outer CRC code has generator polynomial g(x) = x7 + x3 + 1,
leading to a code with dimension 64. A list size of 32 has
been used in the simulation. The code outperforms all the
competitors relying on iterative decoding algorithms, down to
a CER ≈ 10−6 , where the code performance curve intersects
the one of the non-binary turbo and LDPC codes. It is anyhow
expected that, by changing the design target for the polar code
(resulting in a different set of frozen bits), a different trade-off
between low and high SNR performance can be achieved.
Finally, the CER of three tail-biting convolutional codes
has been included [70]. The first code ( ) is based on a
memory-8 encoder with generator polynomials (in octal form)
given by [515 677]. The second code ( ) is based on a
The wrap-around Viterbi algorithm (WAVA) algorithm has
been used for decoding [71]. The memory-11 convolutional
code reaches the performance of the BCH and LDPC codes
under OSD. The memory-8 code loses 1 dB at CER ≈ 10−6 ,
but still outperforms binary LDPC and turbo codes over the
whole simulation range. The third code ( ) is based on
a memory-14 encoder [72] with generator polynomials (in
octal form) given by [75063 56711]. The code outperforms all
other codes in Figure 1 (at the expense of a high decoding
complexity due to the large number of states in the code
trellis).
A. The Elephant in the Room: Complexity
In the comparison presented at the beginning of this Section,
an important aspect has been (purposely) overlooked: the cost
of decoding. The codes that perform close to the SPB rely
on relatively complex decoding algorithms. An exhaustive
decoding complexity comparison would require a lengthy
and rigorous analysis. Moreover, aspects that are not directly
measurable in terms of algorithmic complexity (such as, for
example, the probability vs. log-likelihood ratio domain form
of the decoding algorithms) but still have large impact in hard-
ware implementation can be difficultly compared. We provide
next only a few qualitative remarks on complexity aspects for
the decoding algorithms employed in the simulations.
Remark 1 (Binary vs. non-binary iterative decoding). Bi-
nary iterative decoding for LDPC and turbo codes can be
efficiently performed in the logarithmic domain, with obvious
belief propagation algorithm for the non-binary LDPC and
turbo codes presented in this manuscript is performed in the
probability domain to allow for FFT-based decoding at the
check nodes [73]. Thanks to the FFT, complexity of iterative
decoding is proportional to q log2 q (being q the field order),
whereas the conventional iterative decoding complexity would
scale with q 2 . From an algorithmic complexity viewpoint,
it has been estimated that the FFT-based decoding of the
(128, 64) non-binary LDPC code is ≈ 64 times larger than
CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY 3

100

10−1

10−2
Codeword Error Rate

10−3

10−4

10−5

10−6
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Eb /N0 , [dB]

Sphere Packing Bound Normal Approximation Random Coding Bound

CCSDS Up-Link LDPC Code
ARJA LDPC Code
F256 LDPC Code
Polar Code, SC Decoding
TB CC, m = 11 [5537 6131]
(3, 6) Regular LDPC Code AR3A LDPC Code
16-states Turbo Code F256 Turbo Code
Extended BCH Code (OSD) F256 LDPC Code (OSD)
Polar Code, List Decoding + CRC-7 TB CC, m = 8 [515 677]
TB CC, m = 14 [75063 56711]

Fig. 1. Codeword Error Rate for several (128, 64) codes over the bi-AWGN channel.

the one of (iterative decoding of) the CCSDS LDPC code
[69]. Complexity reductions for non-binary LDPC codes can
be obtained by applying sub-optimum check node update rules,
with various trade-offs between coding gain and decoding
complexity [74].
Remark 2 (OSD vs. non-binary iterative decoding). For the
code parameters adopted in this comparison, OSD and non-
binary belief propagation decoding over a finite field of order
256 have similar decoding complexities, as documented in
[75]. However, the decoding complexity of OSD scales less
favorably with the block length than that of (non-binary)
belief propagation (which is linear in the block length for a
fixed iteration count and ensemble degree distributions pair).
Hence, for larger block lengths OSD may be considered im-
practical. Efficient OSD variants have been introduced during
the past decade, which may extend the range of interest for
OSD algorithms (see e.g. [46]).
B. Error Detection
Some of the algorithms used to decode the codes in Figure
1 are complete, i.e., the decoder output is always a codeword.
Incomplete algorithms, such as belief propagation for LDPC
codes, may output an erasure, i.e., the iterative decoder may
converge to a decision that is not a (valid) codeword. Hence,
while for complete decoders all error events are undetected,
incomplete ones provide the additional capability of discarding
some decoder outputs when decoding does not succeed. In
some applications, it is of paramount importance to deliver
very low undetected error rates. This is the case, for instance,
4 CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY
of telecommand systems, where wrong command sequences
may be harmful. The CCSDS LDPC code has been designed
with this objective in mind, trading part of the coding gain for
a strong error detection capability [76]. Complete decoders,
such as those based on OSD and Viterbi decoding, may be
used in such critical applications by adding an error detection
mechanism. One possibility would be to include an outer
error detection code. Nevertheless, in the short block length
regime the introduced overhead might be unacceptable. In
this context, a more appealing solution is provided by a
post-decoding threshold test as proposed in [77]. Denote by
y = (y1 , y2 , . . . , yn ), with x+n, the bi-AWGN channel output
for a given transmitted codeword x (n is the noise contribution
here). We refer to the conditional distribution of y given x
as p(y|x). We further denote the maximum likelihood (ML)
decoder decision as
xML := arg max p(y|x).
x∈C
In [77] the metric
p(y|xML )
ΛML (y) := X (1)
p(y|x)
x∈C
x6=xML
was proposed and it was proved that the rule for discarding
the decoder decision given by the threshold test
ΛML (y) < exp(nT )
is optimal in the sense on minimizing the undetected error
probability for a given (overall) error probability. The metric
(1) is in general complex to compute (with some notable
exceptions, see e.g. [78], [79]) due to evaluation of the
denominator of (1) (which requires a sum over all possible
codewords) and to the need of the ML decision xML . In the
case of OSD (and of list decoders in general) an approximation
of the metric (1) can be easily obtained by summing the
conditional distribution p(y|x) over the codewords present in
the list, only. The resulting metric would then be given by
p(y|xOSD )
ΛOSD (y) := X Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 3051–3073, July 2009.
p(y|x)
x∈L
x6=xOSD
with
xOSD := arg max p(y|x). (2)
x∈L
being L the list produced by the OSD algorithm. While the
performance of the test based on the metric (1) has been
extensively studied (see e.g. [77], [80]) the authors are not
aware of any attempt at analyzing the performance of the
metric (2).
III. C ONCLUSIONS
An overview of the recent efforts in the design and analysis
of efficient error correcting codes for the short block length
regime has been provided. A case study tailored to (128, 64)
binary linear block codes has been used to discuss some of
the trade-offs between coding gain and decoding complexity
for some of the best know code/decoding schemes. The
comparison, though incomplete, highlights some promising
directions for the design of short and moderate-size block
codes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Igal Sason for his valuable
comments which helped to improve the review of finite-length
performance benchmarks.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell System
Tech. J., vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656, Jul./Oct. 1948.
[2] E. R. Berlekamp, Key papers in the development of coding theory. IEEE
Press, 1974.
[3] P. Elias, “Error-free coding,” Transactions of the IRE, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.
29–37, September 1954.
[4] R. G. Gallager, Low-Density Parity-Check Codes. Cambridge, MA,
USA: M.I.T. Press, 1963.
[5] G. D. Forney, Jr., Concatenated Codes. Cambridge, MA, USA: M.I.T.
Press, 1966.
[6] D. J. Costello, Jr. and G. D. Forney, Jr., “Channel coding: The road to
channel capacity,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 6, pp. 1150–
1177, June 2007.
[7] C. Berrou, A. Glavieux, and P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit
error-correcting coding and decoding: Turbo-codes,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Commun. (ICC), Geneva, Switzerland, May 1993.
[8] D. J. C. MacKay, “Good error-correcting codes based on very sparse
matrices,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 399–431, Mar
1999.
[9] T. Richardson, M. Shokrollahi, and R. Urbanke, “Design of capacity-
approaching irregular low-density parity-check codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 619–637, Feb. 2001.
[10] T. Richardson and R. Urbanke, “The capacity of low-density parity-
check codes under message-passing decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 599–618, Feb. 2001.
[11] M. Luby, M. Mitzenmacher, M. A. Shokrollahi, and D. A. Spielman,
“Improved Low-Density Parity-Check Codes Using Irregular Graphs,”
IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 585–598, Feb. 2001.
[12] H. D. Pfister, I. Sason, and R. Urbanke, “Capacity-achieving ensembles
for the binary erasure channel with bounded complexity,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2352–2379, Jul. 2005.
[13] H. D. Pfister and I. Sason, “Accumulate-repeat-accumulate codes:
Capacity-achieving ensembles of systematic codes for the erasure chan-
nel with bounded complexity,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 6,
pp. 2088–2115, June 2007.
[14] E. Arikan, “Channel polarization: A method for constructing capacity-
achieving codes for symmetric binary-input memoryless channels,” IEEE
[15] M. Lentmaier, A. Sridharan, D. Costello, Jr., and K. Zigangirov, “Itera-
tive decoding threshold analysis for LDPC convolutional codes,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 5274–5289, Oct. 2010.
[16] S. Kudekar, T. Richardson, and R. Urbanke, “Threshold saturation via
spatial coupling: Why convolutional LDPC ensembles perform so well
over the BEC,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 803 –834,
Feb. 2011.
[17] T. de Cola, E. Paolini, G. Liva, and G. Calzolari, “Reliability options
for data communications in the future deep-space missions,” Proc. IEEE,
vol. 99, no. 11, pp. 2056–2074, Nov. 2011.
[18] F. Boccardi, R. W. Heath, A. Lozano, T. L. Marzetta, and P. Popovski,
“Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,” IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.
[19] E. Paolini, C. Stefanovic, G. Liva, and P. Popovski, “Coded random
access: applying codes on graphs to design random access protocols,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 144–150, June 2015.
[20] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Towards massive, ultra-reliable,
and low-latency wireless communications with short packets,” Proc.
IEEE, 2016, to appear.
[21] T. Richardson and R. Urbanke, Modern coding theory. Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
[22] S. Ten Brink, “Convergence behavior of iteratively decoded parallel
concatenated codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1727–
1737, Oct. 2001.
CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY
[23] H. R. Sadjadpour, M. Salehi, N. J. A. Sloane, and G. Nebe, “Interleaver
design for short block length turbo codes,” in IEEE International
Conference on Communications, vol. 2, 2000, pp. 628–632 vol.2.
[24] C. Radebaugh, C. Powell, and R. Koetter, “Wheel codes: Turbo-like
codes on graphs of small order,” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop
(ITW), Paris, France, Mar. 2003.
[25] M. Yang, W. E. Ryan, and Y. Li, “Design of efficiently encodable
moderate-length high-rate irregular LDPC codes,” IEEE Transactions
on Communications, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 564–571, April 2004.
[26] G. Liva and W. Ryan, “Short low-error-floor tanner codes with hamming
nodes,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, Atlantic City, US, Oct. 2005.
[27] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, and C. Jones, “Short protograph-based LDPC
codes,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, Orlando, FL, USA, 2007, pp. 1–6.
[28] G. Liva, W. E. Ryan, and M. Chiani, “Quasi-cyclic generalized LDPC
codes with low error floors,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 1, pp.
49–57, Jan. 2008.
[29] I. E. Bocharova, B. D. Kudryashov, R. V. Satyukov, and S. Stiglmayry,
“Short quasi-cyclic LDPC codes from convolutional codes,” in IEEE
International Symposium on Information Theory, June 2009, pp. 551–
555.
[30] T.-Y. Chen, K. Vakilinia, D. Divsalar, and R. D. Wesel, “Protograph-
Based Raptor-Like LDPC Codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 5,
pp. 1522–1532, May 2015.
[31] T. Jerkovits and B. Matuz, “Turbo code design for short blocks,” in Proc.
7th Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems Conference, Maiorca (Spain),
September 2016.
[32] M. C. Davey and D. MacKay, “Low density parity-check codes over
GF(q),” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 165–167, Jun. 1998.
[33] J. Berkmann, Iterative Decoding of Nonbinary Codes. Munich,
Germany: Ph.D. dissertation, Tech. Univ. München, 2000.
[34] J. Berkmann and C. Weiss, “On dualizing trellis-based APP decoding
algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1743–1757,
Nov. 2002.
[35] C. Poulliat, M. Fossorier, and D. Declercq, “Design of regular (2, dc )-
LDPC codes over GF(q) using their binary images,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 1626–1635, 2008.
[36] A. Venkiah, D. Declercq, and C. Poulliat, “Design of cages with a
randomized progressive edge-growth algorithm,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 301–303, Apr. 2008.
[37] W. Chen, C. Poulliat, and D. Declercq, “Structured high-girth non-binary
cycle codes,” in Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC),
Shanghai, China, Oct. 2009, pp. 462–466.
[38] L. Costantini, B. Matuz, G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “On
the performance of moderate-length non-binary LDPC codes for space
communications,” in Proc. 5th Adv. Sat. Mobile Sys. Conf. (ASMS),
Cagliari, Italy, Sep. 2010.
[39] K. Kasai, D. Declercq, C. Poulliat, and K. Sakaniwa, “Multiplicatively
repeated nonbinary LDPC codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57,
no. 10, pp. 6788–6795, Oct. 2011.
[40] G. Liva, B. Matuz, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “Short non-binary IRA
codes on large-girth Hamiltonian graphs,” in Proc. IEEE International
Conf. on Commun. (ICC), Ottawa, Canada, Jun. 2012.
[41] B. Y. Chang, D. Divsalar, and L. Dolecek, “Non-binary protograph-
based LDPC codes for short block-lengths,” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory
Workshop (ITW), Lausanne, Switzerland, Sep. 2012.
[42] G. Liva, E. Paolini, B. Matuz, S. Scalise, and M. Chiani, “Short turbo
codes over high order fields,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 6, pp.
2201–2211, June 2013.
[43] B. Matuz, G. Liva, E. Paolini, M. Chiani, and G. Bauch, “Low-rate non-
binary LDPC codes for coherent and blockwise non-coherent AWGN
channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4096–4107,
October 2013.
[44] L. Dolecek, D. Divsalar, Y. Sun, and B. Amiri, “Non-binary protograph-
based LDPC codes: Enumerators, analysis, and designs,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 3913–3941, July 2014.
[45] M. Fossorier and S. Lin, “Soft-decision decoding of linear block codes
based on ordered statistics,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 41, no. 5, pp.
1379–1396, Sep. 1995.
[46] A. Valembois and M. Fossorier, “Box and match techniques applied to
soft-decision decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 5, pp.
796–810, Dec. 2004.
[47] Y. Wu and C. Hadjicostis, “Soft-decision decoding using ordered recod-
ings on the most reliable basis,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 53, no. 2,
pp. 829–836, Feb. 2007.
[48] G. Liva, E. Paolini, and M. Chiani, “On optimum decoding of certain
product codes,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 905–908, Jun.
2014.
5
[49] I. Tal and A. Vardy, “List decoding of polar codes,” IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2213–2226, May 2015.
[50] T. Hehn, J. B. Huber, S. Laendner, and O. Milenkovic, “Multiple-
bases belief-propagation for decoding of short block codes,” in IEEE
International Symposium on Information Theory, Jun. 2007, pp. 311–
315.
[51] T. Hehn, J. B. Huber, O. Milenkovic, and S. Laendner, “Multiple-bases
belief-propagation decoding of high-density cyclic codes,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jan. 2010.
[52] Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS). [Online].
Available: http://www.ccsds.org
[53] Next Generation Uplink, Green Book, Issue 1, Consultative Committee
for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) Report Concerning Space Data
System Standards 230.2-G-1, Jul. 2014.
[54] C. E. Shannon, R. G. Gallager, and E. R. Berlekamp, “Lower bounds
to error probability for coding on discrete memoryless channels,” Infor-
mation and Control, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 65–103, 1967.
[55] A. Valembois and M. P. Fossorier, “Sphere-packing bounds revisited for
moderate block lengths,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp.
2998–3014, Dec. 2004.
[56] G. Wiechman and I. Sason, “An improved sphere-packing bound for
finite-length codes over symmetric memoryless channels,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1962–1990, May 2008.
[57] C. Shannon, “Probability of error for optimal codes in a Gaussian
channel,” Bell System Tech. J., vol. 38, pp. 611–656, May 1959.
[58] R. Gallager, Information theory and reliable communication. New York,
NY, USA: Wiley, 1968.
[59] Y. Polyanskiy, V. Poor, and S. Verdu, “Channel coding rate in the finite
blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–
235, May 2010.
[60] S. Dolinar, D. Divsalar, and F. Pollara, “Code performance as a function
of block size,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA, TMO
progress report 42-133, May 1998.
[61] I. Sason and S. Shamai, “Performance analysis of linear codes under
maximum-likelihood decoding: A tutorial,” Found. and Trends in Com-
mun. and Inf. Theory, vol. 3, no. 1–2, pp. 1–222, Jul. 2006.
[62] Spectre: short packet communication toolbox. [Online]. Available:
https://sites.google.com/site/durisi/software
[63] J. Thorpe, “Low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes constructed from
protographs,” JPL IPN, Tech. Rep., Aug. 2003, 42-154.
[64] A. Abbasfar, K. Yao, and D. Disvalar, “Accumulate repeat accumulate
codes,” in Proc. IEEE Globecomm, Dallas, Texas, Nov. 2004.
[65] D. Divsalar, S. Dolinar, C. Jones, and K. Andrews, “Capacity-
approaching protograph codes,” IEEE JSAC, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 876–888,
August 2009.
[66] X. Hu, E. Eleftheriou, and D. Arnold, “Regular and irregular progressive
edge-growth tanner graphs,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 1, pp.
386–398, Jan. 2005.
[67] M. Baldi, M. Bianchi, F. Chiaraluce, R. Garello, I. Sanchez, and S. Cioni,
“Advanced channel coding for space mission telecommand links,” in
IEEE VTC Fall, Las Vegas, NV, USA, Sep. 2013, pp. 1–5.
[68] G. Liva, E. Paolini, T. D. Cola, and M. Chiani, “Codes on high-
order fields for the CCSDS next generation uplink,” in 2012 6th
Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference (ASMS) and 12th
Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop (SPSC), Sept
2012, pp. 44–48.
[69] Short block length LDPC codes for TC synchronization and channel
coding, Orange Book, Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
(CCSDS) Experimental Specification 231.1-O-1, Apr. 2015.
[70] P. Stahl, J. B. Anderson, and R. Johannesson, “Optimal and near-optimal
encoders for short and moderate-length tail-biting trellises,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 2562–2571, Nov 1999.
[71] R. Y. Shao, S. Lin, and M. P. C. Fossorier, “Two decoding algorithms for
tailbiting codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 1658–1665,
Oct 2003.
[72] R. Johannesson and K. S. Zigangirov, Fundamentals of convolutional
coding. John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
[73] L. Barnault and D. Declercq, “Fast decoding algorithm for LDPC over
GF(2q ),” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop (ITW), Cergy, France,
Mar. 2003, pp. 70–73.
[74] D. Declercq and M. Fossorier, “Decoding algorithms for non-binary
LDPC codes over GF(q),” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 4, pp.
633–643, Apr. 2007.
[75] M. Baldi, F. Chiaraluce, N. Maturo, G. Liva, and E. Paolini, “A hybrid
decoding scheme for short non-binary LDPC codes,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 2093–2096, Dec 2014.
6 CODE DESIGN FOR SHORT BLOCKS: A SURVEY

[76] S. Dolinar, K. Andrews, F. Pollara, and D. Divsalar, “Bounded angle
iterative decoding of LDPC codes,” in Proc. 2008 IEEE Milcom, Nov.
2008, pp. 1–6.
[77] G. D. Forney, Jr., “Exponential error bounds for erasure, list, and
decision feedback schemes,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 206–220, Mar. 1968.
[78] E. Hof, I. Sason, and S. Shamai, “On optimal erasure and list decoding
schemes of convolutional codes,” in Proc. Tenth Int. Symp. Commun.
Theory and Applications (ISCTA), Jul. 2009, pp. 6–10.
[79] A. R. Williamson, M. J. Marshall, and R. D. Wesel, “Reliability-output
decoding of tail-biting convolutional codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1768–1778, June 2014.
[80] E. Hof, I. Sason, and S. Shamai, “Performance bounds for erasure, list,
and decision feedback schemes with linear block codes,” IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3754–3778, Aug 2010.